- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Will baseball always allow the richest teams to buy their wins, or will it ever…
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:16 am to tduecen
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:16 am to tduecen
quote:
They were willing to accept but so were other team's, remember he refused a previous trade to the Cardinals because he wanted to go to "his" place. Which I'm not a fan of that type of move
Well if the Cardinals had acquired him, either the Marlins would have had to retain a ton of salary (which wasn't going to happen, and why the Yankees gave up basically nothing in prospect capital) or the Cardinals would have had a difficult time fielding a team around him.
And yeah, I'm not a fan of players making those demands, either. It's why I always pull against Stanton. Guy doesn't appreciate the opportunity he has to play in the league, nor his ridiculous salary... He's got to pick the perfect destination. And now, I guess he's mad that Yankees fans boo him when he doesn't perform up to his contract.
This post was edited on 10/23/21 at 8:17 am
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:16 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
They drafted and developed well.
Altuve, Bregman, Tucker, Yordan, Correa, Yuli, LMJ, Framber, Garcia, etc all came from the farm. Yordan came from a trade with the Dodgers while he was still in the minors, but still counts because that's all scouting.
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:17 am to Metaloctopus
It was essentially the same type of deal the Yankees had in place, not sure the prospects but the money was similar. Stanton said he wasn't going to St. Louis though as he had his 10/5 rights
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:19 am to dltigers3
quote:
I’m not positive, but I doubt it is common that the highest paid player on your payroll misses two complete seasons and is likely to never play for the organization again. I’m not positive, but I doubt it is common that the highest paid player on your payroll misses two complete seasons and is likely to never play for the organization again.
I really do hope that Verlander comes back with a discount considering how he has made $66 million in the last two seasons and made what, 1 appearance last year?
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:21 am to Spelt it rong
quote:
1.Los Angeles Dodgers $194,839,000
2.New York Yankees $179,040,714
3.New York Mets $166,904,168
4.Los Angeles Angels $162,193,094
5.San Diego Padres $153,220,000
6.Houston Astros $150,300,833
7.Boston Red Sox $147,870,000
8.Washington Nationals $147,841,575
9.Philadelphia Phillies $139,665,962
10.San Francisco Giants $137,222,777
11.Colorado Rockies $129,513,333
12.Chicago Cubs $128,140,000
13.Chicago White Sox $120,454,166
14.St. Louis Cardinals $118,079,166
15.Atlanta Braves $112,759,375
These numbers are wrong. The Dodgers payroll is ~260 million. Astros 198 or so
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:24 am to tduecen
quote:
It was essentially the same type of deal the Yankees had in place, not sure the prospects but the money was similar. Stanton said he wasn't going to St. Louis though as he had his 10/5 rights
Stanton's contract was signed with the Marlins. The only issue was how much any other team was going to pay, and how much the Marlins would have to retain. I don't see how the Cardinals could have paid the same percentage of his salary that the Yankees did, without destroying the rest of their roster. And He also didn't have 10/5 rights, as he hadn't been in the league for ten years. The Marlins gave him a no trade clause. Which I think is dumb. 300 plus million wasn't enough, he had to have a no trade clause. The Marlins got hosed on their return because of that.
This post was edited on 10/23/21 at 8:25 am
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:27 am to PrimeTime Money
You can take out acuna from the braves then because he has only played a third of the season.
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:29 am to hiremikeleach
A third of this season is still 50 more games than JV has played in the past 2 years
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:30 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
The Astros have not always been good. They were bad for about a decade before their current run. They drafted and developed well. That's how you do it the right way.
Do it the right way? Are you guys fricking kidding me? They tanked for multiple straight seasons while losing over 100 games a year to get the team they now have.
Give me a break
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:31 am to WHATDOINO
Lots of teams tanked, only one went to 3 World Series in 5 years. You make it seem like a cheat code or something
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:34 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
Yea, not sure if sportrac website is correct, but it has the stros as the 3rd highest active payroll and 4 overall roster. But the dodgers are so far ahead it’s silly
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:36 am to hiremikeleach
quote:
You can take out acuna from the braves then because he has only played a third of the season.
Acuna signed a really cheap extension, wonder if he regrets it now? 8/$100m and he could probably get 8/$300m on the open market.
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:39 am to dltigers3
What does the length of time not played have to do with it? All of these teams signed players to contracts regardless of the amount of games they would play.
Braves have been without Soroka for 2 seasons now. Acuna has missed half of this year. Ozuna is in legal trouble after getting hurt and has missed basically the entire season.
Bauer is suspended because he's kinky and some whore wants his money. Kershaw is hurt. Muncy is hurt. Turner is hurt. Hamels never saw the field (same shite in Atlanta last year)
All of these teams are paying guys to not play right now, so no, you can't play the "remove this guy's salary because it makes my team look better" game
Braves have been without Soroka for 2 seasons now. Acuna has missed half of this year. Ozuna is in legal trouble after getting hurt and has missed basically the entire season.
Bauer is suspended because he's kinky and some whore wants his money. Kershaw is hurt. Muncy is hurt. Turner is hurt. Hamels never saw the field (same shite in Atlanta last year)
All of these teams are paying guys to not play right now, so no, you can't play the "remove this guy's salary because it makes my team look better" game
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:51 am to WHATDOINO
quote:
Do it the right way? Are you guys fricking kidding me? They tanked for multiple straight seasons while losing over 100 games a year to get the team they now have.
Give me a break
I'm not even an Astros fan, I'm a Braves fan. And I'm not talking about tanking (which is hard to prove that they did), nor am I talking any sign stealing shenanigans. The fact is that they scouted, drafted and developed well, as did my Braves, and as have the Rays. When you are a lower budget team, you don't "tank", as in not try to win games, but you have to sell off high priced assets when they are not getting you over the hump, so that you can attain prospects.
When you do this, you're going to lose for a while, whether you try to or not. And you have to take advantage of the draft position you have, as well as hit on multiple guys in later rounds. You don't build a franchise with just first rounders. You have to find guys all over the draft, as well as the international market that you can develop and either use or flip for someone you can use. That's the "right way" I'm referring to.
This post was edited on 10/23/21 at 8:54 am
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:53 am to Spelt it rong
Yeah. It’s not right
Posted on 10/23/21 at 8:57 am to Spelt it rong
Mets $166mm and nothing to show for it
Posted on 10/23/21 at 9:07 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
How about you give a link instead of telling people they're wrong after providing a source?
Posted on 10/23/21 at 9:08 am to Spelt it rong
LINK
The luxury tax is 210 mil I believe. The dodgers are uh not 20 mil below the luxury tax level
The luxury tax is 210 mil I believe. The dodgers are uh not 20 mil below the luxury tax level
This post was edited on 10/23/21 at 9:11 am
Popular
Back to top


1







